Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Modeling of downdraft gasification process: Studies on particle

geometries in thermally thick regime
Ashish Chaurasia
Chemical Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT), South Ambazari Road, Nagpur, 440010, Maharashtra, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, a downdraft gasifier model is coupled with a single-particle model to analyze the effects of
Received 15 May 2017 particle geometries such as slab, cylindrical, and spherical on different parameters. Simulations were
Received in revised form performed using particles in a thermally thick regime with larger particle sizes of 0.003e0.05 m, which
26 July 2017
are generally used in commercial gasifiers. This combination of the downdraft gasifier model and single
Accepted 20 October 2017
particle model was implemented using Comsol Multiphysics software program. The results obtained are
in good agreement with those of obtained in previous studies. The low thermal conductivity of biomass
(kB), small particle size (dp), high gas temperature (Tg), higher molar fraction of oxygen in primary air
Keywords:
Biomass
(XO2 ), and high mass-transfer coefficient (km) favor the formation of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
Gasification (H2), high tar conversion, and higher lower heating value. To maximize the CO composition and tar
Modeling conversion, the initial gas temperature ðTg Þ is more crucial. The least sensitive parameter is the thermal
Simulation conductivity of biomass (kB ) in relation to product composition of CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), H2, and
Sensitivity analysis methane (CH4). The sensitivity for all the parameters is found to be the highest for the spherical ge-
Geometries ometry and is least for the slab geometry.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction depends on maximization of CO and H2 present. The size of

The world's petroleum reserves are not infinite. Moreover,
because petroleum is being consumed rapaciously, its costs are
increasing, and eventually, an alternative to petroleum would be
needed (Levenspiel [1]). A cost-effective large-scale source of en-
ergy available to meet the world's insatiable appetite for petroleum
is biomass. As a renewable energy source, biomass has a great
potential for both developed and developing countries (Demirbaş
[2]). Biomass contribution to the total electricity generated is less
compared to coal and gas. This contribution is likely to increase for
several reasons, with one being that biomass power systems will
become more affordable with an improvement in technology.
Biomass gasification is used for producing fuel gases, chemicals,
and energy (Chaurasia & Kulkarni [3]; Chaurasia [4]; Khonde &
Chaurasia [5]; Chaurasia, Khonde & Nanda [6]). In updraft gasifiers
produce more amount of tar and the quality of the gas largely de-
pends on the presence of devolatilization products. By contrast
downdraft gasifiers produce less amount of tar and heating value
E-mail address: aschaurasia@che.vnit.ac.in.
reduction zone in downdraft gasifier plays an important role for
maximum tar conversion and high quality gas (Reed & Markson
[7]).
The recent modeling efforts include the application of an equi-
librium model to predict the performance of commercial gasifiers
[8]. Because of the composition of the solid product and tempera-
ture, these models are able to anticipate the exit gas composition;
however, they cannot be employed for designing reactors. The
downdraft gasifiers proposed by Groeneveld & Van Swaaij [9] and
Manurung & Beenackers [10] consider chemical reaction kinetics
coupled with transport equations. Giltrap, McKibbin, & Barnes [11]
proposed a steady-state model incorporating the gas and char re-
actions in a downdraft gasifier. Babu & Sheth [12] modified this
model considering exponential variation of the char reactivity
factor. However, both these steady-state models do not consider tar
cracking reactions. It is assumed that all the oxygen (O2) from the
air is combusted to CO2 before entering the reduction zone.
Heat and mass transfer is the important phenomenon for
biomass particles in a thermally thick regime [13,14]. The intra-
particle residence time of volatiles and gases and the extent of tar
cracking within the particles play an important role in determining

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.093
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
992 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009
the end products of pyrolysis in a single particle. Therefore, it is
crucial to know the dependency of product distribution on process
conditions, feedstock properties, and geometry type of the feed-
stock in the gasification process. However, the geometrical effects
of feedstock in the formulation of gasifier models have been
neglected in previous studies.
The present study proposed a single-particle model of pyrolysis
coupled with a more advanced one-dimensional steady-state
model of a downdraft gasifier to study the geometrical effects of
feedstock on various parameters [4] to establish some of the
combustion characteristics of the fuel relevant for gasification. The
biomass briquette spheres (0.003e0.05 mm), cylinders
(0.003e0.05 mm) with different lengths (10e50 mm) and slab
(0.003e0.05 mm) with different lengths (10e50 mm) have been
considered. The equivalent diameter of slab sample has been
arrived at based on volume relationship. The downdraft gasifier
model considers processes such as tar cracking reactions, homo-
geneous gas phase reactions, and heterogeneous char reactions.
The pyrolysis fractions for different geometries such as slab, cy-
lindrical, and spherical were predicted from the single-particle
model [13,15]. Experiments were performed in a two-stage
gasifier to determine the product composition of feedstock and
kinetic parameters for the tar cracking reaction. The model was
used to analyze parameters such as dp, kB, moisture content, Tg, Wa,
XO2 and km on the performance of the gasification process for
different geometries (slab, cylindrical, and spherical).
2. Experimental section
Experiments were performed to determine the tar cracking
parameters and gas composition in a two-stage gasifier, as shown
in Fig. 1. The reactor design and the experiments have been
explained in detail in previous studies [4e6]. However, they have
been briefly presented here for clarity and continuity. The first
stage is the biomass pyrolysis zone, where biomass is heated and
volatile matter is released. It comprises a type 316 stainless steel
inner tube of diameter 4.4 cm and length 25 cm with the following
operating conditions:
 Heating rate: 10  C/s
 Initial temperature: Room temperature up to 303 K
Fig. 1. Two-stage gasifier.
 Final temperature: 773 K
 Holding time upon attaining final temperature: 900 s
The newly formed volatiles and tar move from the first stage to
the second stage because of a continuous flow of carrier gas ni-
trogen (N2). The second stage is similar to the first stage in design
and construction materials. Char formed from primary pyrolysis of
rice husk in the first stage of the reactor was taken out and used in
the second stage as char bed to promote both homogeneous and
heterogeneous cracking of tar. The char is characterized by low bulk
density and high ash content (about 46%). The proximate analysis of
char shows moisture content (14%), volatile matter (9%), ash con-
tent (46%) and fixed carbon (31%) on weight basis. The second stage
is operated in the temperature range 1073e1273 K at atmospheric
pressure. Upon exiting the second stage, products and unreacted
volatiles pass through a tar trap comprising a tube immersed in
liquid nitrogen.
At the end of each experiment, the second stage is washed with
a 1:4 methanol chloroform solution before removing the char and
wire mesh strip so that all the tar is recovered from the reactor wall,
char, and wire mesh strip. The tar trap is washed with the same
solvent and the solution is filtered with a filter paper in a pre-
weighed beaker to ensure the smaller char particle not mixed in the
tar which would affect the tar weight. The solvent is then evapo-
rated by a rotary evaporator at 90  C at a speed of 30e40 rev/min
for 40 min. After almost all the solvent is evaporated, the tar is dried
at 35  C in a circulating oven to complete the solvent evaporation.
The tar is then weighed to determine the tar yield.
3. Model development
In this study, a more advanced one-dimensional steady-state
model of a downdraft gasifier coupled with a single-particle model
of pyrolysis was proposed. The output of the single-particle py-
rolysis model serves as input to the steady-state model of a
downdraft gasifier. These models were developed in our earlier
study [4,13] and are briefly presented here.
3.1. Single-particle pyrolysis model
The single-particle model has been developed considering the
following assumptions:
(1) Thermal and transport properties (porosity, thermal con-
ductivity, specific heat, and mass diffusivity) vary along the
radial direction.
(2) Gas-phase processes occur under unsteady-state conditions.
(3) Mass transfer of volatiles and gases occurs because of con-
vection and diffusion processes.
(4) Thermal equilibrium between solid feedstock and gases.
(5) No moisture content and no particle shrinkage.
The model developed considering the above assumptions and
using the kinetic scheme proposed by Shafizadeh & Chin [16] for
primary pyrolysis coupled with Di Blasi [17] scheme for tar cracking
is given in Table 1. The nominal values of parameters employed in
this model are given in Table 2.
3.2. Downdraft gasifier model
The main assumptions employed while developing this model
are as follows:
1. The system is one-dimensional.
2. Transport of mass occurs by convection only.
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 993

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Single particle pyrolysis model. .
t ¼ a t R2 (13)
Shafizadeh & Chin [16] and Di Blasi [17] mechanism

.

q ¼ Ts  Tf T0  Tf (14)

h
i
BiM ¼ ðR=kB Þ h þ us Ts3 þ Ts2 Tf þ Tf2 Ts þ Tf3 (15)

 .


Q ¼  DH þ CpB Ts r CpB T0  Tf (16)

Table 2
Nominal values of parameters employed for pyrolysis model.

Parameters Values

Geometry factor b ¼ 1; 2; 3; dimensionless

Particle diameter range dp ¼ 0:010  0:022 m
Initial temperature T0 ¼ 303 K
Final temperature Tf ¼ 1200 K
Particle model Emissivity coefficient u ¼ 0:95, dimensionless
Mass conservation for biomass, (Gas)1 (Char)1, Tar and (Gas)2: Stefan Boltzmann constant s ¼ 5:67  108 W/m2 K4

vC B
2 . 

¼ R a  k1ðpÞ C B  k2ðpÞ C B  k3ðpÞ C B (1)
vt
3. The heat transfer coefficient, mass transfer coefficient, thermal
conductivity, and gas viscosity can vary along the length of the
vC G1
2 . 

¼ R a k1ðpÞ C B (2) gasifier.
vt
4. Constant porosity.
5. The fuel is composed of C, H, and O. The gas-phase species
vC C1
2 . 

¼ R a k3ðpÞ C B (3) included in the model are O2, N2, CO, CO2, H2, water (H2O), CH4,
vt
and tar. In practice, tar is a combination of different, often pol-
yaromatic, species.
vC T
. 

¼ R2 a k2ðpÞ C B  k4ðpÞ C T (4)
vt
The processes occurring in the downdraft gasifier include: py-
rolysis, tar cracking, combustion of gases, and combustion and
vC G2
2 . 

¼ R a k4ðpÞ C T (5) gasification of char particles. The model equations are available in
vt
Table 3.
Enthalpy: The pyrolysis step has a strong influence on the entire gasifi-
  cation process because the biomass is characterized by a higher
vq b  1 vq v2 q vr
¼ þ 2þ Q  (6) content of volatile matter. The effect of pyrolysis in the present
vt x vx vx vt
model is incorporated in terms of pyrolysis fraction (fp ), as dis-
Initial conditions:
cussed by Giltrap, McKibbin & Barnes [11].
The pyrolysis fraction is the effective fraction of initial gas that
t ¼ 0; C B ¼ 1; CG1 ¼ CC1 ¼ CT ¼ CG2 ¼ 0; qðx; 0Þ ¼ 1 (7)
results from pyrolysis. The value of fp depends on the amount of
Particle boundary conditions: volatile matter present in the biomass, flowrate of air, and the
relative kinetics of pyrolysis. The compositions of gases, tar, and
vq
t > 0; x ¼ 0; ¼0 (8) char produced for different geometries (slab, cylindrical, and
vx
spherical) are obtained from the single-particle pyrolysis model as
vq
discussed above. The molar composition of various gas species (Ci )
t > 0; x ¼ 1; ¼ qBiM (9) is calculated from the experimental data [4,5,17,18].
vx
Tar formed during pyrolysis undergoes secondary cracking that
Conversion of biomass:
can occur homogenously in the gas phase or heterogeneously at the
" !, #
P
M surface of the biomass or char particles. Tar cracking is considered
C B0  CB ðM þ 1Þ
i¼1
to follow an overall reaction as discussed in Ref. [4]. The kinetic
X¼ (10)
C B0 parameters used for tar cracking are estimated from experimental
data (Table 4). Table 5 shows the stoichiometric coefficients for tar
Dimensionless groups
cracking derived from experimental data.
 The homogeneous reactions during gas combustion and the
a ¼ kB r CpB (11)
heterogeneous reactions of char with species in the gas phase such
as CO2, H2O and H2 are reported in Table 3. The downdraft gasifi-
x ¼ r 0 =R (12)
cation processes are modeled using the equations of mass and
energy conservation for a one-dimensional steady-state system as
given in Table 3.
994 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Downdraft gasifier model.
dCCH4 dvg
vg ¼ CCH4  r1ðcÞ þ r3ðrÞ þ gCH4 rT;crack (41)
Tar cracking dz dz
kT;crack
Tar ! gCO CO (g) þ gCO2 CO2 (g) þ gCH4 CH4 (g) þ gH2 H2 (g) þ Stable
tar (17) dCH2 O dvg
  vg ¼ CH2 O þ 2r1ðcÞ þ 2r2ðcÞ  rshift  r2ðrÞ (42)
E 3 1
dz dz
rT;crack ¼ A0 T;crack exp  RT;crack
g Tg
rT moles m s (18)

Gas combustion or oxidation dCT dvg

KE vg ¼ CT  rT;crack (43)
CO þ H2O
! CO2 þ H2
(19) dz dz
k1ðcÞ
CH4 þ 1.5O2 ! CO þ 2H2O (20)
k2ðcÞ dCO2 dvg
2H2 þ O2 ! 2H2O (21) vg ¼ CO2  1:5r1ðcÞ  r2ðcÞ  r3ðcÞ (44)
dz dz
k3ðcÞ
2CO þ O2 ! 2CO2 (22)
Reaction rates (Groppi et al. [19]) dCN2 dvg
   vg ¼ CN2 (45)
E CCO CH dz dz
rshift ¼ A0shift exp  Rshift
g Tg
CCO CH2 O  K2 E 2 mol m3 s1 (23)
  Energy balance
E 3 1
r1ðcÞ ¼ A01ðcÞ exp  Rg1ðcÞ 0:7 0:8
Tg CCH4 CO2 mol m s (24) !
  X dTg X dP dvg X 0 4hgw  
E 3 1
vg Ci cpi ¼ rj DHj vg P  R i cpi Tg  Tg  Tw
r2ðcÞ ¼ A02ðcÞ exp  Rg2ðcÞ
Tg CH2 CO2 mol m s (25) i
dz j
dz dz i
Dr
  (46)
E 3 1
r3ðcÞ ¼ A03ðcÞ exp  Rg3ðcÞ 0:5
Tg CCO CO2 CH2 O mol m s (26)
Pressure gradient and superficial gas velocity (Ergun [24])
Reduction
dP 150mð1  εÞ2 1:75Cg ð1  εÞ 2
k1ðrÞ  ¼ vg þ vg (47)
C þ CO2 !2CO (27) dz d2p ε3 dp ε3

2 P X P X
k2ðrÞ rj DHj 0 vg Ci cpi 1 Ci cpi R0 i
C þ H2 O !CO þ H2 (28) dvg 1 6 j dP @ vg i Aþ i i
¼ X 4  þ
dz Cg R g þ Ci cpi Tg dz Tg P Cg
k3ðrÞ i
C þ 2H2 !CH4 (29)  #
X 4hgw Tg  Tw
 R0 i cpi 
Reaction rates (Smith [20]) i
D r Tg
(48)
Ci
rjðrÞ ¼ mol m3 s1
1 1
þ (30-32)
km ap kjðrÞ
i ¼ CO2 ; H2 O; H2 ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3

6ð1  εÞ
ap ¼ (33)
dp

Heat and Mass transfer correlation (Gupta and Todos [21])

Table 4
Values and correlations used in the numerical solution of the model.
2:06cpg rg vg 0:575 ð2=3Þ
hsg ¼z Re Pr (34)
ε Tar cracking:
AT;crack 1:0  1010 s1 Estimated
ET;crack 185:0kJ/mol Estimated
2:06vg 0:575 2=3
km ¼ Re Sc (35) DHT;crack 42kJ/kg Di Blasi [25]
ε
Combustion gases:
Thermal conductivity (Purnomo, Aerts and Ragland [22]) kshift 2:78 expð1513=Tg Þ s1 Biba et al. [26]
 2=3 KE 0:0265 expð7914=Tg Þ Yoon, Wei & Den [27]
m ¼ 1:98  105
Tg
(36) k1ðcÞ 1:6  1010 expð24157=Tg Þ s1 Desroches Ducarne et al. [28]
300 k2ðcÞ 1011 expð10000=Tg Þ s1 Di Blasi [29]
Viscosity of gas (Di Blasi [23]) k3ðcÞ 3:25  107 expð15098=Tg Þ s1 Hautman et al. [30]
DHshift 41:2 kJ/mol Buekens and Schoeters [31]
kg ¼ 25:77  103 (37) DH1ðcÞ 17473 kJ/kg Bryden and Ragland [32]
DH2ðcÞ 142919 kJ/kg Bryden and Ragland [32]
Mass balance DH3ðcÞ 10107 kJ/kg Bryden and Ragland [32]
Char reduction:
dC dvg
vg CO ¼ CCO þ r1ðcÞ  2r3ðcÞ  rshift þ 2r1ðrÞ þ r2ðrÞ þ gCO rT;crack (38) k1ðrÞ 107 expð26095=Tg Þ s1 Groeneveld and van swaaij [9]
dz dz
k2ðrÞ 107 expð26095=Tg Þ s1 Groeneveld and van swaaij [9]
k3ðrÞ 104 expð26095=Tg Þ s1 Hobbs, Radulovic & Smoot [33]
dCCO2 dvg DH1ðrÞ 172:6 kJ/mol Buekens and Schoeters [32]
vg ¼ CCO2 þ 2r3ðcÞ þ rshift  r1ðrÞ þ gCO2 rT;crack (39)
dz dz
DH2ðrÞ 131:4 kJ/mol Buekens and Schoeters [32]
DH3ðrÞ 74:93 kJ/mol Buekens and Schoeters [32]
dCH2 dvg Other constants and correlation:
vg ¼ CH2  2r2ðcÞ þ rshift þ r2ðrÞ  2r3ðrÞ (40)
dz dz z 0.02 Present study
Di 0:2  104 m2 s1 Di Blasi [29]
cpg 1:1 kJ kg1 K1 Di Blasi [29]
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 995

Table 5 3.4. Initial values

Initial values used in the model.

Present Study (Estimated) The initial position in the model is the top of the combustion
CCOin 0.1697 mol m3 zone and end of the pyrolysis zone. The gases arriving at the top of
CCO2in 0.217 mol m3 the combustion zone are a mixture of pyrolyzed gas and air. The
CH2in 0.0213 mol m3
exact amount of the gases is determined by the actual air flowrate
CCH4in 0.072 mol m3
CH2 Oin 0.282 mol m3
into the gasifier relative to the rates of combustion, pyrolysis and
CTin 0.240 mol m3 cracking reactions. The initial values of fractions of gases, tar, and
gCO 0.497 char produced for the different geometries (slab, cylindrical, and
gCO2 0.322 spherical) are estimated using the single-particle pyrolysis model
gCH4 0.102 as discussed above. Then, the composition of various gas species
gH2 0.026
considered is estimated based on the experimental data. The values
gST 0.06
and correlations used in the simulation are reported in Table 4. The
Senelwa [34]:
Tg 1228.0 K initial gas temperature, pressure, and velocity of the model are
vg 0.699 m/s those of the gas coming from the combustion zone. These param-
P 101325.0 Pa eters are obtained from the experimental data by Senelwa [34]
D 0.2 m (Table 5).
ε 0.394
Char reactivity factors used in present study:
The number of reactions occurring within a bed of downdraft
CRF1ðrÞ ¼ 1:995  105 gasifier depends on the reactivity of char, which is represented by
CRF2ðrÞ ¼ 2:4  105 the char reactivity factor ðCRFÞ, as discussed by Giltrap, McKibbin &
CRF3ðrÞ ¼ 1:585 Barnes [11]. The value of frequency factors used in this study is
CRF1ðcÞ ¼ 1:0  102 obtained by multiplying the reported frequency factors by the CRF,
CRF2ðcÞ ¼ 3:981  106 which represents the relative reactivity of different char types to a
CRF3ðcÞ ¼ 1:1385  102 particular reaction. That is, A0 ¼ A  CRF, where A is the value re-
CRFshift ¼ 1  104 ported in literature (Table 4). In the present study, the value of CRF
CRFT;crack ¼ 6:31 varies over a wide range (102e106) as reported in Table 5.
The air entering the gasifier contains 79% N2 and 21% O2 by
volume. N2 is not produced by any of the reactions considered in
the present study, and it does not participate in any reactions.
3.3. Method of solution
Therefore, the amount of N2 can be used to infer the pyrolysis
Equations (1)e(9) provide a set of nine coupled partial differ- fraction (fp ). Fig. 2 shows the axial profile of N2 molar fraction for
ential equations for the single-particle model, and equations different values of (fp ). The downdraft gasifiers that use air typically
(38)e(46)e(48) provide a set of 11 coupled first-order ordinary produce gas containing 45%e50% N2 as a percentage of dry gas
differential equations for the system variables Ci (where i ranges volume [11]. As shown in Fig. 2, the value of fp ¼ 0.6 produces re-
over the eight different species considered), P; v; and Tg . These sults typical of downdraft gasification of biomass.
equations along with the initial conditions are solved using COM-
SOL Multiphysics software, Stockholm, Sweden.

75
LEGEND
70 fp=0.2 fp=0.6
fp=0.3 fp=0.7
65 fp=0.4 fp=0.8
fp=0.5
60
XN (% vol, db)

55

50
2

45

40

35

30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
L (m)
Fig. 2. Axial profile of nitrogen molar fraction expressed as percentage of dry gas volume for different pyrolysis fractions (dp ¼ 0.001 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, Tw ¼ 300 K, T ¼ 1228 K,
v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2).
996 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

4. Results and discussion
4.1. Model validation and comparison
4.1.1. Single-particle pyrolysis model
Some results of the pyrolysis model validation are illustrated in
Figs. (3)e(4). The details of the experimental validation results have
been described in previous studies [15,35,36]. Fig. 3 shows the
temperature profile as a function of time at the centre (i.e., x ¼ 0) of
the cylindrical pellet of radius 0.003 m. This profile was compared
with the profiles obtained by Jalan & Srivastava [37] and the
experimental data obtained by Pyle & Zaror [38]. The model was
observed to fit the experimental data better than that proposed by
Jalan & Srivastava [37]. Fig. 4 shows the conversion profile as a
function of time with a cylindrical pellet of radius 0.00915 m and
final temperature of 679 K. The model developed [39] fits the
experimental data better compared with the model of Liliedahl &
€ stro
Sjo €m [40].

700

600
Temperature (K)

500

LEGEND
Pyle & Zaror [38] (Experimental)
400 Present study (Single particle pyrolysis model)
Jalan & Srivastava [37]

300

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (s)
Fig. 3. Temperature profile as a function of time at the centre of the cylindrical pellet (R ¼ 0.003 m, T0 ¼ 303 K, Tf ¼ 643 K, x ¼ 0).

100 Alves & Figueiredo [39] (Experimental)

Present study (Single particle pyrolysis model)
90 Liliedahl & Sjostrom [40]
80

70
Conversion (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)
Fig. 4. Conversion profile as a function of time with cylindrical pellet (R ¼ 0.00915 m, T0 ¼ 303 K, Tf ¼ 679 K).
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 997

4.1.2. Downdraft gasifier model 4.2. Simulation results

The downdraft gasifier model developed in a recent study [4]
was compared with the experimental data from two downdraft
gasifiers [41,42] and the model developed by Giltrap, McKibbin &
Barnes [11], as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for different gas species and
dry gas volume. The model in Ref. [4] fits better with the experi-
mental data compared with the model proposed by Giltrap,
McKibbin & Barnes [11]. Fig. 7 shows the temperature profile as a
function of length of the gasifier. Again, the model developed by
Ref. [4] agrees well with the experimental data [10].
The good agreement reported in the literature supports the
model validity across a wide range of operating conditions.
Therefore, extensive simulations were performed by varying the dp,
kB, moisture content, Tg, Wa, XO2 and km for slab, cylindrical, and
spherical geometries. Because large particles are normally
employed in an industrial gasifier, the simulations in our study
were performed using particles in a thermally thick regime
(0.003e0.05 m), as described by Di Blasi [43].

4.2.1. Effect of thermal conductivity of biomass (kB )

As reported by Kanury & Blackshear [44], the kB varies from 0.03

70 Senelwa [41] (Experimental)

Chee [42] (Experimental)
60 Present model (Chaurasia [4])
Model proposed by Giltrap et al. [11]
50
X (% vol, db)

40

30

20

10

CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2

Fig. 5. Comparison of species molar fractions expressed as percentage of dry gas volume predicted by the present model with experimental data and with the ouputs of an earlier
model (dp ¼ 0.001 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.02, fp ¼ 0.6).

70 Senelwa [41] (Experimental)

Chee [42] (Experimental)
60 Present model (Chaurasia [4])
Model proposed by Giltrap et al. [11]
50
X (% vol, db)

40

30

20

10

CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2

Fig. 6. Comparison of species molar fractions expressed as percentage of dry gas volume predicted by the present model with experimental data and with the ouputs of an earlier
model assuming that some of the CH4 produced by tar cracking and pyrolysis reactions will undergo combustion with O2 (dp ¼ 0.001 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s,
ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.02, fp ¼ 0.6).
998 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
Tg (K)
800
Manurung & Beenackers [10] (Experimental)
700 Present model (fp=0.1) (Chaurasia [4])
600 Present model (fp=0.6) (Chaurasia [4])

500
400
300
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
L (m)

Fig. 7. Temperature profile along the depth of the gasifer as pyrolysis fraction is varied (dp ¼ 0.005 m, D ¼ 0.1 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.5, z ¼ 0.02).

to 0.40 W/mK. Therefore, simulations were performed considering
the same range to study the effect of this parameter on product
yield. Fig. 8 shows the fractions of gas, char, and tar from pyrolysis
with different geometries for dp ¼ 0.018 m. The amount of char and
tar increases while the fraction of gases decreases as kB increases.
Thus, lower kB results in good-quality gas having a higher fraction
of gases and lower fractions of char and tar. The spherical geometry
has highest fraction of gases with least amount of char and
maximum possible conversion of tar compared with the slab and
cylindrical geometries for all values of kB . This is because of the
shortest conversion time for spherical particles, as can be expected
from its lowest surface-to-volume ratio. Geometrically, the sphere
exhibits greater heat-absorbing capacity compared with cylinder
and slab; the slab has the least capacity, resulting in higher overall
temperature of spherical particles compared with other
geometries.
Fig. 9 shows the axial profiles of species molar fraction from the
downdraft gasifier, expressed as a percentage of dry gas volume for
different geometries. A decrease in the compositions of CO and H2
was observed for all the geometries as the value of kB increased. The
composition of CO2 increased with kB because of tar cracking and
combustion of CO; only a slight increase in CH4 composition was
predicted as the kB increased. The composition of tar and unreacted
char increased with kB. The spherical geometry has the highest
composition of CO and H2 , whereas the slab geometry has the
highest composition of CO2 and CH4 . Thus, lower kB results in more

0.51

0.48 x
Fractions of pyrolysis products (-)

0.45
Slab
Cylinder x
0.42
Sphere
0.39
x z
0.36
x = Gases
0.33 y = Char
z
z = Tar
0.30
z
0.27
y
y
0.24 y

0.21
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Thermal conductivity of biomass (W/m K)
Fig. 8. Fractions of gas, tar and char from pyrolysis for several thermal conductivities of biomass with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, T0 ¼ 303 K, Tf ¼ 1228 K).
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 999

36
Slab
33 Cylinder
CO Sphere

Composition of species (% vol, db)

30

27

24 CO
CO
21

18
CO2
15
CO2
12 CO2
9
H2
H2
6
H2
3 CH4
CH4 CH4
0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Thermal conductivity of biomass (W/m K)
Fig. 9. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of thermal conductivity of biomass with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m,
D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

CO and H2 with maximum tar conversion, and thus higher lower
heating value (LHV). The spherical geometry results in the highest
LHV compared to other geometries at lower values of kB. The results
also imply that the reactor should be operated with biomass having
lower kB because it results in high-quality gas with higher LHV.
4.2.2. Effect of particle size (dp )
Fig. 10 illustrates the variation of fractions for gases, tar, and char
from pyrolysis with dp for different geometries. The dp for the slab is
considered as its equivalent diameter. A successively lower gas
yield was predicted as larger particles were considered. In contrast
to gas, the yields of char and tar increased with dp. This may be due
to an increase in the heat transfer resistance and a decrease in
pyrolysis temperature inside the particle with an increase in dp.
Therefore, the formation of char and tar is more favored with an
increase in dp. Here, the spherical geometry has the highest gas
yield and lowest yields of char and tar compared with other ge-
ometries. Thus, pyrolysis progresses faster in a sphere than in a slab
or cylinder.
Fig. 11 illustrates the composition of species during downdraft
gasification as a function of dp. Smaller particles produced more CO
and H2 and less CO2 than larger particles. These findings are in good

0.60 x = Gases Slab

y = Char Cylinder
0.55 Sphere
z = Tar
Fractions of pyrolysis products (-)

x
0.50

0.45
x
0.40

0.35 z x
z
0.30 z
y
0.25 y
y
0.20
0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.022
Particle size (m)
Fig. 10. Fractions of gas, tar and char from pyrolysis as a function of particle size with slab, cylinder and sphere (T0 ¼ 303 K, Tf ¼ 1228 K).
1000 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

36
Slab
33 CO Cylinder
Sphere

Composition of species (% vol, db)

30

27
CO
24 CO
21

18
15 CO2
CO2
12
CO2
9
H2 H2
6 H2

3 CH4 CH4
CH4
0
0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.022
Particle size (m)
Fig. 11. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of particle size with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m,
Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

agreement with those of other studies [45]. The composition of CH4
is less affected with the increase in dp, and there is only a slight
increase in CH4 with dp. The tar conversion decreases with an in-
crease in dp. The yield of unreacted char also increases with dp.
Thus, a smaller dp is more preferable for higher LHV because it
results in a high composition of CO and H2 and maximum possible
conversion of tar with less amount of char. Compared with slab and
cylindrical geometries, the spherical geometry has the highest
composition of CO and H2 and the lowest composition of tar over
the entire range of dp considered.
4.2.3. Effect of moisture content
The moisture content affects the product composition of
biomass. For the gasification operation in general, biomass with
low moisture content is preferred because of its higher gross en-
ergy content. A moisture content higher than 67% (dry basis) makes
the product gas too lean for ignition [46]. Although lower moisture
content is preferred for producing high-quality gas, it is desirable to
maintain a level of at least less than 33% (dry basis) to produce a
combustible gas. Thus, in our study, simulations were performed
considering a moisture content variation from 0% to 30%. This

33
CO
30
Composition of species (% vol, db)

27 CO
Slab
24
Cylinder
21 CO Sphere
18
CO2
15
CO2
12
CO2
9
H2 H2
H2
6

3 CH4
CH4
CH4
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture content (%)
Fig. 12. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of moisture content with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m,
Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 1001

additional moisture content in the biomass feedstock is accounted
for by increasing the proportion of H2 O in the pyrolysis gas in our
study.
Fig. 12 illustrates the composition of species as a function of
moisture content. The composition of CH4 is almost constant at 2%
(vol.), 1.97% (vol.), and 1.98% (vol.) for slab, cylindrical, and spherical
geometries, respectively. The composition of H2 increases from 7%
(vol.) to 8.67% (vol.) for spherical geometry, and it is less for slab and
cylindrical geometry. A similar trend is also observed for CO2
composition. There is a slight decrease in CO composition with an
increase in moisture content for all the geometries. Furthermore,
there is a discernible increase in the composition of tar with an
increase in moisture content, as shown in Fig. 13. The spherical
geometry has the lowest tar yield (i.e. highest conversion) and the
highest yield of CO and H2 compared with slab and cylinder.
Moisture content of biomass plays a critical role in maximizing the
production of H2, which is the secondary renewable energy source,
a clean fuel, and one of the most important alternative energy
sources to fossil fuels in this millennium. However, if high-moisture
fuel is used in the gasifier, the LHV of the gasifier decreases because

0.6
Slab
Cylinder
0.5 Sphere
Composition of tar (% vol, db)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture content (%)
Fig. 13. Molar fractions of tar during downdraft gasification expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of moisture content with slab, cylinder and sphere
(dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

39
Slab
36
Cylinder
Composition of species (% vol, db)

33 Sphere
30
CO
27 CO
24 CO

21
18
15 CO2
12 CO2
CO2
9
H2
H2
6
H2
3 CH4 CH4
CH4
0
1175 1200 1225 1250 1275 1300
Initial gas temperature (K)
Fig. 14. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of initial gas temperature with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m,
L ¼ 0.6 m, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
1002 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

of an increase in tar composition and a decrease in CO composition.
Therefore, the optimum value of moisture content depending on
the type of application should be used in gasification process.
4.2.4. Effect of initial gas temperature ðTg Þ
The gas temperature is an important parameter for the overall
biomass gasification process, and influences rate constants, equi-
librium constants, pressure, superficial velocity, and residence
time. The species compositions as a function of Tg (in the range
1175e1300 K) are shown in Fig. 14. Within the specified
temperature range, the composition of CO increases from 13.28%
(vol.) to 30.23% (vol.) for slab geometry, and it is higher for cylin-
drical and spherical geometry. As CO2 reacts with carbon to produce
CO, its composition decreases from 18.01% (vol.) to 10.18% (vol.)
with an increase in Tg for slab geometry; the composition is the
lowest for spherical geometry. Moreover, there is a slight decrease
in H2 composition with an increase in Tg for all the geometries. The
composition of CH4 is almost constant at 1.95% (vol.), 1.92% (vol.),
and 1.96% (vol.) for slab, cylindrical, and spherical geometries,
respectively, for the studied temperature range. The effect of

1.0
Slab
0.9 Cylinder
Sphere
0.8
Composition of tar (% vol, db)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1175 1200 1225 1250 1275 1300
Initial gas temperature (K)
Fig. 15. Molar fractions of tar during downdraft gasification expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of initial gas temperature with slab, cylinder and sphere
(dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

39
36
33 CO
Composition of species (% vol, db)

CO
30
27
CO
24 Slab
21
Cylinder
Sphere
18
15
12 CO2
CO2 CO2
9
H2
6 H2 H2

3 CH4 CH4
CH4
0
15 30 45 60 75 90
Air Flow rate (kg/h)
Fig. 16. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of air flow rate with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m,
Tg ¼ 1228 K, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 1003

increase in Tg on tar composition is shown in Fig. 15. As a high
temperature favors tar cracking reactions [47], the yield of tar de-
creases with an increase in Tg; this favors an increase in the
composition of CO compared with CO2 and CH4 as per reaction 17
(Table 3), whereas there in no increase in the composition of H2
with tar cracking. As discussed above, the spherical particle ge-
ometry results in a higher overall temperature, and thus, it has the
lowest tar yield compared with other geometries. Thus, an increase
in Tg produces more CO and decreases tar yield (i.e., increase in tar
conversion), and consequently results in higher LHV. The results
also imply that the reactor should be operated at an optimum
temperature because preheating to higher temperature is no longer
efficient if the purpose of the gasification is to maximize the effi-
ciency of the gasifier.
4.2.5. Effect of air flowrate ðWa Þ
Fig. 16 illustrates the composition of the species
ðCO; CO2 ; H2 ; CH4 Þ in the product gas as a function of the Wa for slab,
cylindrical, and spherical geometries. The compositions are calcu-
lated at the exit of the gasifer at different Wa ranging from 15 to
90 kg/h. Thus, only a barely discernible increase in H2 composition
is predicted as Wa is increased while there is no change in
composition of CH4 . The composition of CO decreases, while the
composition of CO2 increases within the same range. Similar results

Slab
6 Cylinder
Sphere
5

4
CO/CO2 ratio

0
15 30 45 60 75 90
Air Flow rate (kg/h)
Fig. 17. CO/CO2 ratio as a function of air flow rate with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

0.30
Slab
Cylinder
0.25
Sphere
Composition of tar (% vol, db)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
15 30 45 60 75 90
Air Flow rate (kg/h)
Fig. 18. Molar fractions of tar expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of air flow rate with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K,
ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
1004 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

were reported by Zhou et al. [48]. This may be due to the fact that
an increase in Wa results in a shortening of the residence time of
gases within the char bed, and thus reduces the rate of reduction
reactions in the char bed. Therefore, the composition of CO de-
creases at the expense of increase in CO2 , which is favored by the
increased Wa. The composition of CO is found to be higher for the
sphere and least for the slab geometry. The CO=CO2 ratio decreases
with an increase in the Wa, as shown in Fig. 17. The low ratio of
CO=CO2 with an increase in the Wa may be attributed to channel
formation. The CO=CO2 ratio is least for slab geometry compared
with the cylindrical and spherical geometries. Fig. 18 illustrates the
composition of tar as a function of Wa. As shown, the increase in Wa
(i.e., increasing superficial gas velocity) has a negative effect of
increasing tar yield and reducing tar conversion because of short-
ening of the residence time. This result is consistent with that re-
ported by Yamazaki et al. [49]. The short residence time is
sometimes accompanied by channeling, which causes the flow of
gas in the gasifier to become nonuniform. The channel appears at
the combustion and reduction zones of the gasifier. At the com-
bustion zone, O2 gas, which reduces tar, is not distributed evenly in

36
Slab
33 Cylinder CO
Sphere
Composition of species (% vol, db)

30

27 CO
24

21
CO
18 CO2
15

12 CO2 CO2
9
H2 H2
6 H2
3 CH4 CH4
CH4
0
10 15 20 25 30
Mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (% vol, db)
Fig. 19. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (vol %) with slab, cylinder and sphere
(dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

5.0
Slab
Cylinder
4.5
Sphere
4.0

3.5
CO/CO2 ratio

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
10 15 20 25 30
Mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (% vol, db)
Fig. 20. CO/CO2 ratio as a function of mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (vol %) with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s,
ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 1005

the gasifier, resulting in increased tar yield. At the reduction zone,
the gas tends to flow at the reactor surface as a result of the edge
effect of channeling; therefore, tar bypasses the char bed where it is
cracked, resulting in increased tar yield. More conversion of tar
with high yields of CO and H2 is observed for the spherical geom-
etry compared with other geometries. Thus, an increase in the Wa
produces less amount of CO, an increase in tar yield, and lower LHV
of the gas products.
4.2.6. Effect of mole fraction of oxygen in primary air ðXO2 Þ
Fig. 19 illustrates the composition of the species
ðCO; CO2 ; H2 ; CH4 Þ in the product gas as a function of XO2 for slab,
cylindrical, and spherical geometries. The effect of higher XO2 at
constant air flowrate is different from that of supplying more O2 by
increasing Wa. A small increase in XO2 results in a considerable
increase in the CO mole fraction and a decrease in H2 mole fraction
(Fig. 19), whereas a small increase in Wa results in a considerable
decrease in the CO mole fraction and only a barely discernible

0.40
Slab
0.35 Cylinder
Sphere
Composition of tar (% vol, db)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
10 15 20 25 30
Mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (% vol, db)
Fig. 21. Molar fractions of tar expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (vol %) with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m,
D ¼ 0.2 m, L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

33

30 CO
Composition of species (% vol, db)

27 CO

24 Slab
Cylinder
21
Sphere CO
18
CO2
15
CO2
12
CO2
9
H2
H2
6 H2
3 CH4 CH4
CH4
0
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200
Mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
Fig. 22. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of mass transfer coefficent with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m,
L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).
1006 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009

0.40
Slab
0.35 Cylinder
Sphere

Composition of tar (% vol, db)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200

Mole fraction of oxygen in primary air (% vol, db)

Fig. 23. Molar fractions of species expressed as percentage of dry gas volume as a function of mass transfer coefficent with slab, cylinder and sphere (dp ¼ 0.018 m, D ¼ 0.2 m,
L ¼ 0.6 m, Tg ¼ 1228 K, v ¼ 0.699 m/s, ε ¼ 0.394, z ¼ 0.2, fp ¼ 0.6).

increase in H2 mole fraction (Fig. 16). This may be explained by the
fact that an increase of Wa results in cooling of the flow in the
preheated area; therefore, more heat is needed to heat-up the
flowing air. Supplying more O2 to the reaction by increasing XO2
results in a decrease in the cooling effect and increases the heat
generated by fuel combustion. The CO composition is found to be
higher for sphere geometry. The CO=CO2 ratio as a function of XO2 is
shown in Fig. 20. The CO=CO2 ratio decreases with increasing XO2 .
This ratio is the least for slab geometry compared with spherical
and cylindrical geometries. Fig. 21 shows the composition of tar as a
function of XO2 . This can be compared with the results in Fig. 18. The
tar yield decreases with an increase in XO2 (Fig. 21), whereas the tar
yield increases with an increase in Wa (Fig. 18). As explained earlier,
the increase in Wa increases the tar yield by shortening the resi-
dence time (Fig. 18), whereas increasing XO2 does not cause short-
ening of the residence time; thus, it does not result in channeling.
Therefore, the residence time of tar in the reduction zone increases
where it is cracked, resulting in a decreased tar yield as shown in
Fig. 21. High yield of CO with maximum conversion of tar is
observed for the spherical geometry compared with slab and cy-
lindrical geometries. The LHV of the product gases increases with
an increase in XO2 because of an increase in the concentration of CO
and conversion of tar.
4.2.7. Effect of mass transfer coefficient (km )
Fig. 22 shows the effect of km on the product compositions of
slab, cylindrical, and spherical geometries. An increase in km favors
the formation of CO because at the expense of a decrease in CO2
concentration. The composition of CH4 is nearly the same at 2.04%
(vol.) for all the geometries as the value of km increases. The
composition of H2 is almost constant at 6.04% (vol.), 6.68% (vol.),
and 6.96% (vol.) for slab, cylindrical, and spherical geometries,
respectively, for the studied km range. Furthermore, there is a
discernible increase in the composition of tar with an increase in
km, as shown in Fig. 23. The spherical geometry has the lowest tar
yield (i.e. highest conversion) and the highest yield of CO and H2
compared with slab and cylinder. The spherical geometry has the
maximum CO production and tar conversion because the sphere
has the lowest surface-area-to-volume ratio, lowest pyrolysis
conversion time, and highest Tg compared with the slab and cy-
lindrical geometries of the same volume. The spherical particles
possess little or no temperature and concentration gradient
compared with other geometries because of their lowest surface
areas. These results also suggest that the reactor should be operated
with a higher value of km because it results in high-quality gas with
higher LHV.
4.2.8. Sensitivity analysis
A further set of simulations is carried out for different geome-
tries to establish the extent to which each of the parameters
examined is important in terms of the product compositions. For
each parameter, except Tg, a deviation of 50% was considered
(Table 6). The reactor length considered was 0.6 m and the dp was
approximately 0.009 m. Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 summarize the
results obtained in the present study for the slab, cylindrical and
spherical geometries respectively in terms of the sensitivity
parameter. Sensitivity is defined as the ratio of the percentage
change of the outputs to the percentage change of the inputs, with
respect to their reference values [4]. The inputs are the properties
and outputs are the concentration of the products. The negative
sign against a particular parametric value indicates a decrease in
the concentration of products with an increase in the value of that
parameter (or vice versa). To increase the CO composition and tar
Table 6
Reference values for the parameters used in sensitivity analysis.
Parameter Values
Thermal conductivity of biomass kB ¼ 0.2 W/mK
Particle diameter dp ¼ 0.015 m
Moisture content m0 ¼ 20%
Initial gas temperature Tg ¼ 1237.5 K
Air flow rate Wa ¼ 60 kg=h
Mole fraction of oxygen in primary air XO2 ¼ 20, dimensionless
Mass transfer coefficient km ¼ 0.1 m/s
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 1007

Table 7
Sensitivity analysis for slab geometry.

Compositions / Methane Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Hydrogen Tar

Parameters Y

kB (þ) 0.0054 0.0609 0.113 0.032 0.0342

kB () 0.0027 0.0448 0.0793 0.0232 0.1137
dp ðþÞ 0.0049 0.2295 0.34 0.0904 0.1089
dp ðÞ 0.0246 0.5649 0.7864 0.2288 0.3615
m0 ðþÞ 0.018 0.0333 0.0172 0.1355 0.1876
m0 ðÞ 0.012 0.0252 0.0936 0.1437 0.4001
Tg ðþÞ 0.8637 6.0338 7.9262 0.9085 15.621
Tg ðÞ 0.52 3.7911 7.0558 0.7207 56.4689
Wa ðþÞ 0.0321 0.2485 0.2692 0.0285 0.9505
Wa ðÞ 0.0389 0.2554 0.3347 0.0433 1.0497
XO2 ðþÞ 0.0134 0.6855 0.1339 0.0111 0.3443
XO2 ðÞ 0.0101 0.7848 0.1324 0.0148 0.6802
km (þ) 0.0337 0.1365 0.2647 0.0325 1.3755
km () 0.0008 0.0029 0.0062 0.0007 0.0269

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis for cylindrical geometry.

Compositions / Methane Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Hydrogen Tar

Parameters Y

kB (þ) 0.0128 0.1897 0.1851 0.0522 0.0113

kB () 0.0012 0.0201 0.0176 0.0078 0.0673
dp ðþÞ 0.0138 0.1574 0.0979 0.0426 0.0397
dp ðÞ 0.0068 0.7039 0.4867 0.2129 0.453
m0 ðþÞ 0.019 0.0281 0.0125 0.1341 0.1222
m0 ðÞ 0.0196 0.0277 0.01176 0.1365 0.1283
Tg ðþÞ 0.9823 9.5189 5.7619 0.9537 17.2671
Tg ðÞ 0.9619 8.4495 6.6011 1.0383 103.971
Wa ðþÞ 0.0218 0.2412 0.1374 0.0212 4.1563
Wa ðÞ 0.0303 0.305 0.1681 0.0283 1.0282
XO2 ðþÞ 0.0212 0.8739 0.1389 0.0201 0.8927
XO2 ðÞ 0.0313 0.8611 0.1992 0.0306 0.534
km (þ) 0.0099 0.0599 0.0537 0.0091 0.9699
km () 0.0119 0.0745 0.0683 0.0114 0.8869

Table 9
Sensitivity analysis for spherical geometry.

Compositions / Methane Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Hydrogen Tar

Parameters Y

kB (þ) 0.0008 0.0422 0.025 0.0099 0.1608

kB () 0.0063 0.2627 0.1501 0.0484 0.0513
dp ðþÞ 0.0019 0.6601 0.2979 0.1124 0.3063
dp ðÞ 0.0338 0.6143 0.3116 0.1927 0.5129
m0 ðþÞ 0.0196 0.0306 0.0141 0.1337 0.183
m0 ðÞ 0.0204 0.0261 0.0119 0.136 0.1807
Tg ðþÞ 0.6963 7.9591 3.7442 0.7047 17.3326
Tg ðÞ 0.9844 10.4018 5.6404 1.0222 100.241
Wa ðþÞ 0.0162 0.1886 0.0845 0.0148 0.0111
Wa ðÞ 0.0327 0.3725 0.1765 0.031 1.0912
XO2 ðþÞ 0.0137 1.1055 0.0734 0.0116 0.323
XO2 ðÞ 0.0379 0.89 0.211 0.0356 0.4785
km (þ) 0.0072 0.07 0.0369 0.0069 1.6338
km () 0.0091 0.0993 0.0493 0.0093 1.8172

conversion, Tg was more crucial. The CO composition increases from
21.26 (vol%) at 1237.5 K to 30.23 (vol%) at 1300 K for slab geometry
and it is higher for cylindrical and spherical geometry. The CO2
composition decreases with increase in Tg. Large variations in CO2
composition are also associated with XO2 and dp with less sensi-
tivity for slab geometry and more sensitivity for spherical geome-
try. The CO2 composition increases with increase in XO2 from 19.94
(vol%) to 21.28 (vol%) for slab geometry and it is higher for
cylindrical and spherical geometry. Furthermore, with a decrease in
Tg , a slight increase is observed in the composition of H2 . The tar
composition is influenced by Tg and mass transfer coefficient (km ).
The tar conversion decreases from 0.033 (vol%) to 0.003 (vol%) with
increase in Tg for slab geometry. The least sensitivity is associated
with kB in relation to product composition of CO, CO2, H2, and CH4
for all the geometries. Thus, in order to maximize the concentration
(yield) of a particular product, there are specific parameters, which
1008 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009
are to be controlled. The sensitivity for all the parameters is found
to be the highest for the spherical geometry and is least for the slab
geometry.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a downdraft gasifier model was coupled with a
single-particle pyrolysis model to incorporate the effects of slab,
cylindrical, and spherical geometries during the gasification pro-
cess. Experiments were performed to determine the composition of
gases and tar cracking parameters to be used in the gasification
process. The models developed are in good agreement with many
experimental results. Extensive simulations were performed by
varying the dp, kB, moisture content, Tg, Wa, XO2 , and km for the slab,
cylindrical, and spherical geometries. Because large particles are
normally employed in an industrial gasifier, the simulations in our
study were performed using particles in a thermally thick regime
(0.003e0.05 m). The fraction of char and tar increases while the
fraction of gases decreases as kB increases. The spherical geometry
results in the highest LHV compared with the other geometries at
lower values of kB, resulting in higher values of CO and H2 with
lower values of tar. The yield of char and tar increases while the
yield of gases decreases with dp. The percentage of H2 in the fuel gas
increases while the percentage of CO decreases with the moisture
content. The production of CO and destruction of tar increases with
an increase in Tg, resulting in higher LHV. An increase in the Wa
results in a decrease in the concentration of CO, an increase in tar
yield, and a decrease in the LHV of the product gases, whereas the
LHV of the product gases increases with an increase in XO2 because
of an increase in the concentration of CO and conversion of tar. The
higher value of km results in high-quality gas with higher LHV. To
maximize the CO composition and tar conversion, Tg is more crucial.
The least sensitive parameter is kB in relation to product compo-
sition of CO, CO2, H2, and CH4. The sensitivity for all the parameters
is found to be the highest for the spherical geometry and is least for
the slab geometry.
Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the contribution of Visvesvaraya Na-
tional Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India for providing experi-
mental and other necessary facilities to carry out this research
work.
References
[1] Levenspiel O. What will come after petroleum? Ind Eng Chem Res 2005;44:
5073e8.
[2] Demirbaş A. Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for
fuels and chemicals. Energy Convers Manag 2001;42:1357e78.
[3] Chaurasia AS, Kulkarni BD. Most sensitive parameters in the pyrolysis of
shrinking biomass particle. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:836e49.
[4] Chaurasia AS. Modeling of downdraft gasifier: studies on chemical kinetics
and operating conditions on the performance of the biomass gasification
process. Energy 2016;116:1065e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
ergy.2016.10.037. Available at:.
[5] Khonde RD, Chaurasia AS. Rice husk gasification in a two-stage fixed-bed
gasifier: production of hydrogen rich syngas and kinetics. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:8793e802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.138.
Available at:.
[6] Chaurasia AS, Khonde RD, Nanda J. Method for converting biomass to
hydrogen rich syngas in a two-stage process. Indian Patent Publication No.
201621041388 A/MUM/2017.
[7] Reed TB, Markson M. Fundamentals of thermochemical biomass conversion.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1985.
[8] Watkinson AP, Lucas JP, Lim CJ. A prediction of performance of commercial
coal gasifiers. Fuel 1991;70:519e27.
[9] Groeneveld MJ, Van Swaaij WPM. Gasification of char particles with CO2 and
H2O. Chem Eng Sci 1980;35:307e13.
[10] Manurung RK, Beenackers AACM. Advances in thermochemical biomass
conversion. London: Blackie A & P; 1994.
[11] Giltrap DL, McKibbin R, Barnes GRG. A steady state model of gas-char re-
actions in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Sol Energy 2003;74:85e91.
[12] Babu BV, Sheth PN. Modeling and simulation of reduction zone of downdraft
biomass gasifier: effect of char reactivity factor. Energy Convers Manag
2006;47:2602e11.
[13] Babu BV, Chaurasia AS. Dominant design variables in pyrolysis of biomass
particles of different geometries in thermally thick regime. Chem Eng Sci
2004;59:611e22.
[14] Babu BV, Chaurasia AS. Heat transfer and kinetics in the pyrolysis of shrinking
biomass particle. Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:1999e2012.
[15] Babu BV, Chaurasia AS. Parametric study of thermal and thermodynamic
properties on pyrolysis of biomass in thermally thick regime. Energy Convers
Manag 2004;45:53e72.
[16] Shafizadeh F, Chin PPS. Thermal deterioration of wood. ACS Symp Ser
1977;43:57e81.
[17] Di Blasi C. Modelling the fast pyrolysis of cellulosic particles in fluid-bed re-
actors. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:5999e6013.
[18] Boroson ML, Howard JB, Longwell JP, Peters AW. Products yields and kinetics
from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars. AIChE J 1989;35:120e8.
[19] Groppi G, Tronconi E, Forzatti P, Berg M. Mathematical modelling of catalytic
combustors fuelled by gasified biomasses. Catal Today 2000;59:151e62.
[20] Smith JM. Chemical engineering kinetics. London: McGraw Hill; 1981.
[21] Gupta AS, Todos G. Direct analogy between mass and heat transfer to beds of
spheres. AIChE J 1963;9:751e4.
[22] Purnomo D, Aerts J, Ragland KW. Proceedings of 23rd International sympo-
sium on combustion. Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute; 1990.
[23] Di Blasi C. Modeling and simulation of combustion processes of charring and
non-charring solid fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:71e104.
[24] Ergun S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem Eng Prog 1952;48:89e94.
[25] Di Blasi C. Analysis of convection and secondary reaction effects within porous
solid fuels undergoing pyrolysis. Combust Sci Technol 1993;90:315e40.
[26] Biba V, Macak J, Klose E, Malecha J. Mathematical model for the gasification of
coal under pressure. J Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1978;17:92e8.
[27] Yoon H, Wei J, Denn MM. A model for moving-bed coal gasification reactors.
AIChE J 1978;24:885e903.
[28] Desroches-Ducarne E, Dolignier JC, Marty E, Martin G, Delfosse L. Modelling of
gaseous pollutants emissions in circulating fluidized bed combustion of
municipal refuse. Fuel 1998;77:1399e410.
[29] Di Blasi C. Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers. Chem Eng Sci
2000;55:2931e44.
[30] Hautman AN, Dryer FL, Schlug KP, Glassman IA. A multiple-step overall kinetic
mechanism for the oxidation of hydrocarbons. Combust Sci Technol 1981;25:
219e35.
[31] Buekens AG, Schoeters JG. Fundamentals of thermochemical conversion.
London: Elsevier; 1985.
[32] Bryden KM, Ragland KW. Numerical modeling of deep fixed bed combustor.
Fuel 1996;10:269e75.
[33] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. Combustion and gasification of coals in
fixed-beds. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:505e86.
[34] Senelwa K. The air gasification of woody biomass from short rotation forests-
opportunities for small scale biomass-electricity systems. Ph.D. Thesis. New
Zealand: Massey University; 1997.
[35] Babu BV, Chaurasia AS. Modeling for pyrolysis of solid particle: kinetics and
heat transfer effects. Energy Convers Manag 2003;44:2251e75.
[36] Babu BV, Chaurasia AS. Pyrolysis of biomass: improved models for simulta-
neous kinetics and transport of heat, mass, and momentum. Energy Convers
Manag 2004;45:1297e327.
[37] Jalan RK, Srivastava VK. Studies on pyrolysis of a single biomass cylindrical
pellet- kinetic and heat transfer effects. Energy Convers Manag 1999;40:
467e94.
[38] Pyle DL, Zaror CA. Heat transfer and kinetics in the low temperature pyrolysis
of solids. Chem Eng Sci 1984;39:147e58.
[39] Alves SS, Figueiredo JL. A model for pyrolysis of wet wood. Chem Eng Sci
1989;44:2861e9.
€stro
[40] Liliedahl T, Sjo €m K. Heat transfer controlled pyrolysis kinetics of a biomass
slab, rod or sphere. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;15:503e9.
[41] Senelwa K. The air gasification of woody biomass from short rotation forests-
opportunities for small scale biomass-electricity systems. Ph.D. Thesis. New
Zealand: Massey University; 1997.
[42] Chee CS. The air gasification of wood chips in a downdraft gasifier. MSc Thesis.
Kansas: Kansas State University; 1987.
[43] Di Blasi C. Heat, momentum and mass transport through a shrinking biomass
particle exposed to thermal radiation. Chem Eng Sci 1996;51:1121e32.
[44] Kanury AM, Blackshear PL. Some considerations pertaining to the problem of
wood-burning. Combust Sci Technol 1970;1:339.
[45] Rapagna S, Latif A. Steam gasification of almond shells in a fluidised bed
reactor: the influence of temperature and particle size on product yield and
distribution. Biomass Bioenergy 1997;12:281e8.
[46] Reed TB, Das A. Handbook of downdraft gasifier engine systems. Golden,
Colorado. 1988.
[47] Stiles HN, Kandiyoti R. Secondary reactions of flash pyrolysis tars measured in
a fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor with some novel design features. Fuel
1989;68:275e82.
[48] Zhou H, Jensen AD, Glarborg P, Jensen PA, Kavaliauskas A. Numerical
 A. Chaurasia / Energy 142 (2018) 991e1009 1009

modeling of straw combustion in a fixed bed. Fuel 2005;84:389e403. x: radial distance ()
[49] Yamazaki T, Kozu H, Yamagata S, Murao N, Ohta S, Shiya A, et al. Effect of Xi : mole fraction of species (vol%)
superficial velocity on tar from downdraft gasification of biomass. Energy
Fuels 2005;19:1186e91. Greek letters

Nomenclature ri : gas phase mass concentration (mass/gas volume), kg m-3

g: stoichiometric coefficient for tar cracking
ε: porosity
ap: volumetric solid surface area, m2/m3
m: viscosity, kg m-1 s-1
b: geometry factor (slab ¼ 1, cylinder ¼ 2, sphere ¼ 3)
z: correction factor for the solid/gas heat transfer coefficient ()
A: frequency factors without CRF, s1
DH: reaction enthalpy, variable
A0 : frequency factors incorporating CRF, s1
t: time ()
Ar : cross-sectional area of the gasifier, m2
a: thermal diffusivity, m2 s-1
C B : concentration of biomass, ()
q: normalized temperature ()
C G1 : concentration of gas 1, () u: emissivity coefficient ()
C G2 : concentration of gas 2, ()
C C1 : concentration of char 1, () Dimensionless numbers
C T : concentration of tar, ()
cp : specific heat of gas, J kg1 K1
BiM : Modified Biot number
CpB : specific heat capacity of biomass, J kg1 K1
Pr: Prandtl number ðmcp =kÞ
Ci : molar concentration or molar density of different species, mol m3
CRF: char reactivity factor () Re: Reynolds number ðCg dp v=mÞ
dp : particle diameter, m Sc: Schmidt number ðm=Cg Di Þ
Di : diffusivity coefficient, m2 s1
Dr : reactor diameter, m Subscripts
E: activation energy for reactions, J mol1
fp : pyrolysis fraction () ðcÞ: combustion or oxidation
h: heat transfer coefficient, W m2 K1 CH4 : methane
k: rate constants for reactions, s1 CO: carbon monoxide
kB : thermal conductivity of biomass, W m1 K1 CO2 : carbon dioxide
km : mass transfer coefficient, m s1 f : final
kg : thermal conductivity of gas, W m1 K1 g: gas phase
KE : equilibrium constant () gw: gas/wall
L: length of gasification zone (combustion & reduction zones), m H2 : hydrogen
m0 : moisture content () H2 O: steam
P: pressure, Pa i: ranges over all the chemical species
R: radius for cylinder and sphere; half thickness for slab, m in: initial values
Q : heat of reaction number, m3 kg1 j: ranges over all the chemical reactions
r: reaction rate, mol m3 s1 O2 : oxygen
r 0 : radial distance, m N2 : nitrogen
R0 : net rate of production of different species by chemical reaction, mol m3 s1 ðpÞ: pyrolysis
Rg : universal gas constant, J mol1 K1 ðrÞ: reduction or gasification
SD: standard deviation () s: solid phase
t: time, s sg: solid/gas
T: temperature, K shift: water gas shift reaction
vg : superficial gas velocity, m s1 T; crack: tar cracking